It would be interesting to perform a variant of the Stern-Gerlach experiment with a vertically-symmetric magnetic field (equal shapes both upper and lower magnetic parts).
I would like to see this experiment. There are other configurations I would like to see as well, such as a single magnet above but none below and vice versa.
@FractalWoman It would also be interesting if non-silver atoms were tried. Silver has one lonely electron in its outermost orbital. Why can't we try seven instead, thus a "hole" virtual particle?
Outstanding presentation of the Gerlach and Stern experiment. On the comment of balabuyew, writing that the experiment requires a non uniform magnetic field, I would point out that the simulation shown by FractalWoman in her geometry simulation is by defacto an inhomogeneous simulation. In addition reading about the G & S experiment (Modern Atomic and Nuclear Physics) on page 105 : "But the fact that only two deflections exist, corresponding to the maximum amount of deflection expected in either direction, shows the quantized nature of the orientation of spin" would be as mathematicians say : A necessary but not sufficient condition to claim absolutely the quantized nature of the orientation of spin.
Hi Lori! I could spend an eternity participating in dialogue about the interpretations of Stern Gerlach and the conquences of discreet spin models! Thank you so much for bringing back science to this critical juncture where things became so abstract!
By the way, Charles Holmes at MFMP and the EVO DAO is very much looking forward to communicating with you about potential collaborations! We haven't found a way to contact you. Can you contact him via his info on the EVO DAO website?
I’ve come to distrust and be very skeptical of experiments that purport to show things like quantum mechanics or claim to prove the electron is a particle. I think the main problem is our inability to directly observe on the scale of individual atoms. Because of that deficiency, we’re forced to interpret experiments results in a way that may not represent what’s actually going on.
Nature itself resists quantization. All values are arbitrary, leaving us to discern based on proportion and time. Like op video, the field of the magnet is one over phi, forming loops of egg shaped objects. We then attempt to find spot values or quantize the entire field object even though from another perspective the magnet is an object reflecting the shape of the universe, extending to infinity in all directions. Atomic study being plagued by Uncertainty is also an issue but not for the pop science reasons. Every measurement injects energy, so the uncertainty isn't part of nature as much as part of how we want nature to be understood.
I am a physics major and you are correct, we can't observe atoms directly, and we should always be skeptical about any experiment and theory, and all our "laws" are just approximations of reality. A really precise approximations but not "laws of nature". All physicists know this, how do we know? Simple QM and GR combined produce nonsense, infinite infinities .... etc. Separately they work and predict exactly what we get from our experiments for now. But we all know they are not the full picture of reality.
@@Fgway It's really logical that measurement changes the system because like you said, you have to inject energy, maybe send a photon to excite an electron, etc. Also in my opinion the term 'uncertainty' puts the wrong idea into ones head. What it actually represents is the standard deviation of measurements. If you prepared 100 same states and measured each one, you will get different results with some probability, and the 'uncertainty' is the deviation of said measurement results.
26:51 The problem with your analysis is that if instead of silver with total spin 1/2 you use an atom with a total spin of 1, you get *three* lines in the SG experiment instead of two, and the third will be directly in the middle, which your model doesn't explain.
Probably your best video yet. I intend to share this in a forum as well as release a video of my own agreeing with your interpretation. The atom is clearly a dipole. I've tried to contact you before on your website, but never got a response.
@@FractalWoman Understood. May I share with you a short document that I wrote regarding a dipole atomic structure? You may find it interesting, and I'd love to get your opinion on it, especially considering that I don't know anyone else who could understand it.
@ How about you make a video on it, then share the video on UA-cam. I have a full time job and don't have a lot of spare time unfortunately. It takes a lot of time to understand other people's line of thinking especially in document form. A video is worth 100 documents. I encourage you to give it a go. :-)
Yes. Even if I am not right about what I am saying, I think it is still important to question the experiments of the past, just in case we missed something.
I highly recommend up and atom 's video on superposition. It explains the Stern-Gerlach experiment quite clearly. It's not about the magnetic poles; it's about... well it's about superposition.
Isn't the electron path in or out of the plane? Not as you show traveling in the plane left to right? Compare the schematic of the SG experiment in the first portion of the video.
the sg experiment appears to have the atoms going longways between the magnets. fw's diagram has the atom going sideways through a cross-section. i'm not sure it would matter as the fields and plane of inertia would be the same, just different length longwise vs crosswise
@ When the magnets are in an up-down orientation, the central plane is horizontal and the deflections are up and down. When the magnets are in a left-right orientation, then the central plane is vertical and the deflections would be left and right. It's all in the experimental setup.
I like your work as it's well reasoned and simple. I've always felt deeply skeptical about traditional physics. And long assumed it was dodgy interpretations, aka 'theory-laden observation'.
It is definitely a spatial boundary condition. Interestingly, when you break a magnet in half, you end up with two magnets self-similar to the original where each has a similar boundary condition in the middle. I find that really interesting. It is reminiscent of cell division where one cell with one nucleus divides into two cells, each with its own nucleus.
32:00 What would happen if the paper was aligned with the dielectric plane of the magnet and not with its pole? Then there would be a circular isopotential on the paper. Alternatively, the paper could be slightly above that plane and the isopotentials would be further apart. I suppose the small magnet could orbit around the large magnet. If the magnet was pointing north upwards, the small magnet could move counterclockwise around it. A new kind of electric motor or generator (?) could emerge.🙂🙂
I did do an experiment with a vertical cylinder magnet and got some interesting results. ua-cam.com/video/SOOx8gB5hf8/v-deo.htmlsi=EKO35SVlfWesZZgC The small magnet starts spinning which is really interesting, but it also always flies to the magnet once it is a certain distance away from the magnet. I was never able to get it to "orbit" the magnet.
@@FractalWoman I think it should be done like the solar system. The planets rotate around the "equator" of the sun. But the paper is at the level of one of the poles. The sun is also tilted relative to the "equator". Maybe tilt the big magnet a little bit relative to the paper. It creates an elliptical isopotential orbit.
@@FractalWoman If the paper is placed above the dielectric plane of the inclined magnet, an isopotential ellipse of one of the poles is created. If the paper is placed at the dielectric plane of the inclined magnet, an isopotential path is formed from both poles. Half the path will belong to the north pole and the other half to the south pole.
@@zdenekbreza3770 The dielectric plane (central plane) cannot be inclined relative to the orientation of the magnet. If the magnet is inclined, then the central plane is inclined. If I place the paper inclined relative to a magnet, then yes, some of the paper will occupy the N pole region and some of it will occupy the S pole region. Is this what you are talking about?
Hello FractalWoman i love your journey of reconstructing physics on your own, and you are very close to finding "quantum" in this experiment analysis. Your classical physics intuition is spot on, all ball dipoles will move like you say, aligned in a vertical line north to south caught by "orbitals" as you said. Since dipoles start at random orientation some will be on their sides and they will need some minuscule time to reorient to magnetic field so they will hit the wall closer to the middle, the ones oriented vertically at start will hit the wall farthest from the middle, so they will form a vertical line hitting the wall, and that HAPPENS in real life with small test dipoles and most atoms, they form a line north to south. BUT SILVER with 1 electron in last orbital form only top and bottom points, nothing in the middle, no matter how they start oriented. And that is what is strange in SG experiment. Why are they hitting the same vertical distance above or below the middle point no matter how they started oriented? And why only atoms with 1 electron in last orbit do this? The rabbit hole starts here.
The reason they choose atoms with one electron in the last orbit is so that there is a Dipole moment (and not a Quadrapole moment or some other configuration). Regarding your question, I believe I answered that question when I compared the isopotential field diagrams with the probability distributions of the electrons inside an atom. There is a low probability of finding an "electron" in the region exactly between the N and S pole and there is a higher probability of finding them both above and below the low probability region. Now, it's possible that I am wrong about everything I am saying here. But until we do the SG-Experiment using two permanent magnets with the same shape and size, I will still be suspicious of the mainstream INTERPRETAION of this experiment.
@@FractalWoman Hehe and i am loving you for it :) I am not here to force mainstream interpretations on you. I agree with everything you said if atom probability clouds are oriented top and bottom (perpendicular to the line of travel) when entering magnetic field, but what will happen if they are at an angle when they start traveling? will they hit the same spots or different ones but just displaced a little depending of the starting angle?
@@FractalWomanWith two magnets of equal shape and size there is no deflection at all, because the forces on either pole of the atom's dipole cancel each other out. The magnetic field in the SG experiment is stronger towards one pole of the apparatus than the other, leading to imbalanced forces on the atomic dipole. The direction of the atomic spin determines the direction of the net force on the atom.
@ On your first point, I beg to differ. There will be deflection because sometimes, the silver atoms are going to be slightly above the central plane in which case they will deflect up and sometimes, the sliver atoms will be slightly below the central plane in which case, they will be deflected down. The chances of the silver atoms being exactly between the two magnets such that all the forces balance is very low which is why the silver atoms don't hit in the exact center.
@@FractalWoman I am curious about your thoughts because this was the moment and experiment that broke my understanding of classical physics on my own journey. Here i had to take a leap of faith to quantum and when you follow that path on the end, when u combine GR and QM, you get nonsense. Somewhere in history of physics we as a society made a mistake. Maybe this is the place...
OK, do variations on the SG experiment with "symmetrical" (non-wedged) magnetic fields also produce this pattern or is it somehow different? Is there a version of SG experiment that produce a single dot in the middle or do all of the versions produce 2 dots at top and bottom position? What you describe feels extremely intuitive though the surest way for either confirming or debunking it, or even devising new interpretation is to DO the experiment and then modify the electric field and note any differences. With luck only one interpretation will be able to predict and explain any additional observations with the modified parameters. This video feels like a necessary first step but only a first step nonetheless. If you can't do the experiment yourself please do a collaboration with someone who can. Don't leave us hanging with an explanation that does not give us additional insight without a solid proof.
I would love to do this experiment, but it would have to be done with silver atoms and setup exactly like the original experiments. My hope is that someone out there has access to this equipment and can do this experiment for me. That is why I made this video.
@@FractalWoman OK, out of curiosity I've just checked Wikipedia on the subject of 'Stern-Gerlach experiment' and there's a dedicated page that directly addresses what you are supposing, namely that the silver atoms act like magnets. There's a claim there that the experimenters initially expected a continuous outcome from top, through middle, to bottom, but instead only got binary top-bottom distribution. There's an animation there for better visualization. To quote the page's description "If the particle is treated as a classical spinning magnetic dipole, it will precess in a magnetic field because of the torque that the magnetic field exerts on the dipole (see torque-induced precession)" - there seems to be an assumption (don't know if it's a correct one), that the magnetic dipole would be spinning. I don't know why the "spinning assumption" is there or if it is a good assumption, but there certainly was some reason for it. There's also a description of a modified experiment, where the SG apparatus is connected in series, in various orientations. The experimental results (Experiment 1) are, that once a top-bottom measurement is made, they test the 'top' stream again and get no 'bottom' stream, which directly contradicts your assumption that the atoms are ever so slightly to the top or bottom, so that is where they end up. If your interpretation was correct, the second stage would also see an even top vs bottom split, but they only got 'top'. IMHO it's the same experimental results as with polarizing filters in various orientations 0/90 deg vs 45/135 deg i.e. first polarizing filter passes either horizontal (0 deg.) or vertical (90 deg.), and any following filter will not detect horizontal polarization if the preceding one was vertical, but if the 2nd stage is 45 deg / 135 deg detection, then both orientations can be detected as in Experiment 2 on Wiki. This has been confirmed experimentally countless times, so I have no doubt it's correct. Quantum spin seems to be then more related to polarization of the wave, rather than simply to its magnetic component/characteristics. Than again, I feel like wave polarization is in fact linked to magnetic characteristics, so I do think you are onto something. However without explaining the Experiment 1's results it's a no-go, as you explicitly state it's random 50%/50% and the actual results are clearly deterministic 100%/0%. My bet would be on this "spinning magnetic dipole" assumption and its following consequence of "torque induced precession" - I am not convinced, that that is a good assumption, though since I haven't done the experiment myself I cannot actually say it's false.
@@FractalWoman hmm.. I've written a lengthy response to your comment, but it disappeared. Did you delete it? Weird. I think I know what is actually happening with the experiment, but since my second comment is no longer visible I cannot reference it and without that context the explanation would be meaningless.
@@vaakdemandante8772 What I do when I make a lengthy comment is I write it in wordpad or some other editor and then transfer it when I am done. That way, I don't lose all the typing. Just a suggestion.
To the previous post: It would also be consistent with this that the stronger atmospheric and geomagnetic storms are at the north pole and not at the south pole of the Earth (the S magnetic pole, which attracts positive charge, on a negatively charged Earth, and when the solar "wind" consisting of positive particles is added, so ... nice discharges🙂)
We need to keep in mind that the North pole of the earth is the south pole of a magnet and vice versa. This confuses the issue unfortunately. chatgpt.com/share/67993d91-8e30-800a-9f76-5b13bd421db3
@@FractalWoman Yes, exactly. The aurora borealis is stronger than the aurora australis (the same goes for those atmospheric storms mentioned), which is located at the north pole of the Earth, where the south magnetic pole is. This is consistent with how I wrote it earlier.🙂
What if they do but the big ass spinning magnet that is also a gyroscope just doesn't have the same forces working on it in the same proportions. The gyroscope would precess if the force is always just from the magnetic field, but if there is a dissipative force slowing it down and a torque in the orientation of the magnetic field then sooner or later the spin will end up aligned with the magnetic field, if the torque is anti aligned the magnetic gyro would end up anti aligned.
Your wondering just means the electron in the magnetic field is not exactly like a gyro with a magnetic moment, that's it, if you are looking for a classical explanation. There really isn't a quantum explanation, just an imposed condition on possible solutions.
@@JrgenMonkerud-go5lg I don’t get, still. Some one do a video on SG and why we don’t see the same thing on our old TV screens; I know, that is asking too much.
You raise a good point actually. The electrons coming out of the electron gun are gonna have their spins aligned on some random axis, and the magnetic fields that deflect them are homogenous. What if we made the field inhomogenous? Would we see the same as we do in SG? I don't think so... I'm not fully sure but I think you'd get curvy lines instead of straight lines.
@@franzliszt3195 they do, the basic idea is that the deflection due to Orientation of the dipole moment only happens in a non uniform magnetic field. While the deflection due to charge is much larger and happens wgether the field is uniform or not. But the dipole moments orientation should change all the same in a homogeneous magnetic
Cool video. It makes perfect sense. A lot more than that quantum bs. Everything can be explained using classical physics instead of fantasy physics. Using the Bloch wall or an equator, instead of Ken Wheeler's dielectric plane of inertia, I managed to get ChatGPT to understand and even find the idea fascinating. I'm sticking with this explanation.
Magnetic monopoles has been popular in Bose Einstein Plasma Orbs control is a Magnetic Monopole Specialty !, Spin ice , n other fields it’s been found ! Even Dr Jack Krause is explaining Molecules of ROS. Reactive oxygen species is using Magnetic monopoles ! Explains Y magnetics has NOT been explained in Biology or Anatomy !
Once again, excellent work. I know that you are a big fan of Ken Wheelers and he has some interesting insights, but he is a bit of a wackadoo. You, on the other hand, have a structured, scientific, can I say 'mathematical' approach to your work when, combined with insights that 'buck' the indoctrinations of academia, is extremely refreshing and oddly consistent. My opinion: you should work on building your brand. You ought to have 1MM followers by now. I am studying your X standards and I am WAY on board with what you are doing with that. It has helped me with a time domain definition I have been working on, (for like decades). Thank you!
Truthfully, I am not really a BIG fan of Ken Wheeler. But he did get me looking more closely at the ferrocell which I finally figured out on my own, so for that, I am appreciative. I also like his ideas surrounding the principle of incommensurability. Everyone has a piece of the puzzle. I am glad you like what I am doing. Thanks so much.
I would like to return to the suggestion of rotating a smaller magnet around a larger one near its dielectric plane. I have wondered for years how it is possible that the Sun changes magnetic poles every 11 years, yet changes neither the electric field nor the direction of rotation, which according to Fleming's right hand/left hand rule, the Sun should still make one of these changes. Imagine that the sun is a small magnet moving around a large one in a CCW orbit and rotating CCW as well. What can make the sun change magnetic poles? Only if it moves half a cycle above the dielectric plane of the large magnet and the other half cycle below it. Hence the inclination of the big magnet. After half a cycle, when the small magnet crosses the dielectric plane again, it will flip over. At that point, if the rotation remained the same, the magnet would suddenly rotate CW. But we see that it continues to rotate CCW. I realized what was going on when I looked at the operation of electric motors. According to Lorentz's rule, a coil placed in a magnetic field with current flowing through it exerts a force on it that causes it to rotate. After half a turn, the direction of the current must change, or the coil would stop rotating. There is an alternating current inside the coil, but from the outside, when we look at the coil, we perceive it as pulsating DC. Precisely because the coil has rotated 180 degrees in space and the AC has changed 180 degrees in time. The same thing happens to the little magnet when it turns upside down and changes direction of rotation at the same time, but we see that it is still rotating just CCW with no change. It's similar with the spin of an electron. In the electric motor example, it would correspond to this: During the 180 degree rotation of the coil, the electron goes all the way around the coil, 360 degrees (spin up) and the same is true in the second half of the cycle (spin down). So a total of 720 degrees during a 360 degree rotation of the coil.
Hmm. I think I am going to have to 3D print myself an experiment that allows me to place one of my large cylinder magnets at an inclined angle and see what happens to the small spherical magnet in the vicinity of the large magnet. Will it still spin? Will it still follow an isopotential curve that intersects the paper? Will it still fly towards the magnet at some point?
Thank you again so much for your work! I find these videos and your teaching invaluable. I do have a question though, you mentioned that magnetic monopoles aren't possible, but in my own understanding I thought that wasn't the case? Thank you so much, cheers!
This video is incredible. I've watched twice. You are the only one rn that gets it completely. Everyone else is behind, and science is WAY behind. Still, we are catching them up! Keep up the great work. ♥️
In this video, I showed you an experiment I did where I was able to get the small spherical magnet to follow an isopotential line of the big magnet. So it is possible for this to happen. Because the small dipoles (silver atoms) are moving at some velocity, their paths are going to be "curved" by the magnetic body and begin to follow the magnetic isopotential analogous to how a small gravitational body can get caught up into a gravitational isopotential of a large gravitational body and fall into an orbit. If the small object is not moving at some velocity, then it WILL fall into the magnet and will never hit the detector.
@@FractalWoman Asteroids never encounter a planet and start moving along a gravitational isopotential (a circle). Also your experiment with the spherical magnet doesn't show anything. The magnet couldn't fall freely under the influence of the magnetic field, because it was stuck on the surface (normal force).
@@mistersir3020 Actually, it IS possible for an asteroid to get captured into a planetary orbit and/or an orbit around the sun under the right conditions: chatgpt.com/share/67965206-c004-800a-88ae-bb9753396bd8 I agree with what you said about the sphere magnet not falling into the big magnet because of the way it is bound to the paper. I explicitly say this in the video. I did a similar experiment where instead of sitting on a piece of paper, built a tiny paper boat for the small magnet and put it into a tub of water near the big magnet. Without the friction of the paper, the magnet (and the boat) flew right to the big magnet. What is interesting about the paper experiment is that the sphere magnet is able to overcome the friction of the paper and roll along an isopotential line with no trouble. So, it's more than just the friction of the paper preventing it from flying to the magnet. It is also the orientation of the sphere magnet. When the tiny sphere magnet is orientated with the magnetic field of the big magnet, it cannot roll toward the magnet. It can only roll orthogonal to the magnetic field lines. I find this really interesting.
I had a little chat with AI and found out that electrons are attracted to the N magnetic pole by the Lorentz force and positive particles to the S pole. I was surprised at first, but in the end I shouldn't have been. First of all, it corresponds exactly to the fact that seeds grow better at the north pole of the magnet. More electrons for growth. Second, it matches your measurement of the N pole being positive, and its positive isopotentials. And thirdly it corresponds to the electron orbitals in the atom (which is positive). So maybe we already know how to produce antimatter in a cheaper and more stable way than in particle accelerators. 😂😂🤣🤣
This explains why (by convention) we always paint the N-pole red and a positive charge red, and the S-pole blue and a negative charge blue. Blue attracts red and vice versa.
@@Elie-J-Saoud I did the experiment and I didn't see any difference. I used exactly the same magnet that Ken uses and the same procedure he described in his video.
@@FractalWoman one should make lot of experiments like the dr's who wrote those books,,, to reach a conclusion,,, Anyway thanks for Your comment,it's been a while :)
11:13 Unlike the SGE, the small magnets here have no angular momentum and are in the vicinity of the large magnet from the beginning. The silver atoms derive their magnetic dipole from a significant angular momentum relative to their mass, which gyroscopically resists being changed. This angular momentum is established before they enter the vicinity of the magnet.
Unfortunately, the ferrocell can not be used to map a field directly as the ferrocell only shows reflected light and not light directly. The ferrocell is really cool, but it does not show a field. It only shows what light reflected off fields look like.
@ but it shows the field lines, right? I thought ferrocell a used extremely small magnetic particles that aligned with the field to visualize its shape.
@@Critter145 The ferrocell doesn't show the "field lines" directly. Only indirectly via the light that reflects off the nano-particle that DO align with the magnetic field. It is technically an optical illusion.
@@Critter145 The light lines that you see in the ferrocell are dependent on the positions of the light sources surrounding the ferrocell. The lines that you see do not correspond to a field line directly. The light that you see might bounce off many field lines before the light reaches your eye. It's an optical illusion. By analogy, if you stand in front of a curved mirror, the reflection that you see might make you look fat, or skinny depending on how the mirror is curved. The image that you see, does not accurately correspond to how you actually look. A similar thing can be said of the ferrocell. The nano-particles between the to pieces of glass are forming a "curved" mirror and the reflections off that mirror do not show the field lines exactly as you would see them if you could see them.
@@FractalWoman "en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finger_of_God_Globule#/media/File:%22Finger_of_God%22_Bok_globule_in_the_Carina_Nebula.jpg" such great argumentation, so eloquently explained. yeah, you really have shown me... just how ignorant and uneducated you are.
The two magnets in my video do form a non-uniform magnetic field between the magnets. In fact, even if the two permanent magnets were exactly the same, there would still be a non-uniform magnetic field between the two magnets. chatgpt.com/share/67963bd4-1e1c-800a-94fa-1827df9d7817 You can easily see this when looking at the isopotential gradients that form between the magnets. Interestingly, THEY never did the experiment with two permanent magnets that are the exactly the same. chatgpt.com/share/6793acfc-ac8c-800a-addd-49d5cb7eac7c I would like to see that experiment. What THEY didn't take into consideration are the isopotential "orbits" that the tiny dipole moments would follow because they are moving at some velocity. They also have no way of proving that the magnetic moments anti-align. This is just an assumption they made based on their potentially flawed logic.
@@balabuyew The experiment will still "work", however, the outcome of the experiment might not be what one expects. I actually played around with this idea using two permanent magnets and my tiny sphere magnets (only with a left-right orientation instead of an up-down orientation). When I roll the tiny sphere magnet between the two magnets, sometimes it flies left and sometimes it flies right. This experiment is hard to control because the magnetic field of the earth the experiment. But I DO see this effect happening at the macro scale. As I roll the tiny magnet between the two large magnets (with some velocity) two things happen: 1) the small magnet always aligns with the two big magnet (and never anti-aligns) 2) if the small magnet is a tiny bit to the left of the center plane of the two big magnets, it's path curves left and if it is a tiny bit to the right of the central plane, it curves right. I could still be wrong, but until they do the SG-Experiment with two identical permanent magnets, I might also be right.
Yet she never used uniform magnetic field (plus you must know Stern-Gerlach requires non-uniform field perpendicular to the beam of particles). Your logic seems off
It would be interesting to perform a variant of the Stern-Gerlach experiment with a vertically-symmetric magnetic field (equal shapes both upper and lower magnetic parts).
I would like to see this experiment. There are other configurations I would like to see as well, such as a single magnet above but none below and vice versa.
@FractalWoman It would also be interesting if non-silver atoms were tried. Silver has one lonely electron in its outermost orbital. Why can't we try seven instead, thus a "hole" virtual particle?
Outstanding presentation of the Gerlach and Stern experiment. On the comment of balabuyew, writing that the experiment requires a non uniform magnetic field, I would point out that the simulation shown by FractalWoman in her geometry simulation is by defacto an inhomogeneous simulation. In addition reading about the G & S experiment (Modern Atomic and Nuclear Physics) on page 105 : "But the fact that only two deflections exist, corresponding to the maximum amount of deflection expected in either direction, shows the quantized nature of the orientation of spin" would be as mathematicians say : A necessary but not sufficient condition to claim absolutely the quantized nature of the orientation of spin.
Hi Lori! I could spend an eternity participating in dialogue about the interpretations of Stern Gerlach and the conquences of discreet spin models! Thank you so much for bringing back science to this critical juncture where things became so abstract!
By the way, Charles Holmes at MFMP and the EVO DAO is very much looking forward to communicating with you about potential collaborations! We haven't found a way to contact you. Can you contact him via his info on the EVO DAO website?
We tried you via LinkedIn :p
@ Can you send me a link please? If it won't post then make the link more cryptic so I can figure it out.
@@FractalWoman 🅒🅗🅐🅡🅛🅔🅢 Aroba 🅔🅥🅞 dash 🅛🅐🅑🅢dot🅘🅞
@@FractalWoman ive tried a few ways... I'm learning some really interesting but ineffective ways of doing cryptography!
I’ve come to distrust and be very skeptical of experiments that purport to show things like quantum mechanics or claim to prove the electron is a particle.
I think the main problem is our inability to directly observe on the scale of individual atoms. Because of that deficiency, we’re forced to interpret experiments results in a way that may not represent what’s actually going on.
100%
Nature itself resists quantization.
All values are arbitrary, leaving us to discern based on proportion and time. Like op video, the field of the magnet is one over phi, forming loops of egg shaped objects. We then attempt to find spot values or quantize the entire field object even though from another perspective the magnet is an object reflecting the shape of the universe, extending to infinity in all directions.
Atomic study being plagued by Uncertainty is also an issue but not for the pop science reasons. Every measurement injects energy, so the uncertainty isn't part of nature as much as part of how we want nature to be understood.
I am a physics major and you are correct, we can't observe atoms directly, and we should always be skeptical about any experiment and theory, and all our "laws" are just approximations of reality. A really precise approximations but not "laws of nature". All physicists know this, how do we know? Simple QM and GR combined produce nonsense, infinite infinities .... etc. Separately they work and predict exactly what we get from our experiments for now. But we all know they are not the full picture of reality.
@@Fgway It's really logical that measurement changes the system because like you said, you have to inject energy, maybe send a photon to excite an electron, etc. Also in my opinion the term 'uncertainty' puts the wrong idea into ones head. What it actually represents is the standard deviation of measurements. If you prepared 100 same states and measured each one, you will get different results with some probability, and the 'uncertainty' is the deviation of said measurement results.
Indeed. Confirmation bias in action.
I like your way of thinking and that you verify everything with experiments and simulations, way to go
26:51 The problem with your analysis is that if instead of silver with total spin 1/2 you use an atom with a total spin of 1, you get *three* lines in the SG experiment instead of two, and the third will be directly in the middle, which your model doesn't explain.
Did they actually do this experiment? If so, can you point me to a source? Thanks in advance.
Probably your best video yet. I intend to share this in a forum as well as release a video of my own agreeing with your interpretation. The atom is clearly a dipole. I've tried to contact you before on your website, but never got a response.
@@KidEatingClown this is a better place to contact me. I check my UA-cam comment notifications regularly. Thanks for your comment.
@@FractalWoman Understood. May I share with you a short document that I wrote regarding a dipole atomic structure? You may find it interesting, and I'd love to get your opinion on it, especially considering that I don't know anyone else who could understand it.
@ How about you make a video on it, then share the video on UA-cam. I have a full time job and don't have a lot of spare time unfortunately. It takes a lot of time to understand other people's line of thinking especially in document form. A video is worth 100 documents. I encourage you to give it a go. :-)
Thanks for all of your videos
I agree with intuition of questioning Stern-Gerlach
Yes. Even if I am not right about what I am saying, I think it is still important to question the experiments of the past, just in case we missed something.
I highly recommend up and atom 's video on superposition. It explains the Stern-Gerlach experiment quite clearly. It's not about the magnetic poles; it's about... well it's about superposition.
Isn't the electron path in or out of the plane? Not as you show traveling in the plane left to right? Compare the schematic of the SG experiment in the first portion of the video.
the sg experiment appears to have the atoms going longways between the magnets.
fw's diagram has the atom going sideways through a cross-section.
i'm not sure it would matter as the fields and plane of inertia would be the same, just different length longwise vs crosswise
@ It doesn't really matter. The point is that it is going through the central plane of the magnet. The Isopotentials are 3D all around the magnet.
@ Then would we have 4 probabilities... Left up/down... right up/down...?
@ When the magnets are in an up-down orientation, the central plane is horizontal and the deflections are up and down. When the magnets are in a left-right orientation, then the central plane is vertical and the deflections would be left and right. It's all in the experimental setup.
I like your work as it's well reasoned and simple. I've always felt deeply skeptical about traditional physics. And long assumed it was dodgy interpretations, aka 'theory-laden observation'.
Great video thanks 🙏
Very clever and revealing. The equipotential plain could also be viewed as representing a phase boundary in the spatial domain, maybe?
It is definitely a spatial boundary condition. Interestingly, when you break a magnet in half, you end up with two magnets self-similar to the original where each has a similar boundary condition in the middle. I find that really interesting. It is reminiscent of cell division where one cell with one nucleus divides into two cells, each with its own nucleus.
32:00 What would happen if the paper was aligned with the dielectric plane of the magnet and not with its pole? Then there would be a circular isopotential on the paper. Alternatively, the paper could be slightly above that plane and the isopotentials would be further apart. I suppose the small magnet could orbit around the large magnet. If the magnet was pointing north upwards, the small magnet could move counterclockwise around it. A new kind of electric motor or generator (?) could emerge.🙂🙂
I did do an experiment with a vertical cylinder magnet and got some interesting results. ua-cam.com/video/SOOx8gB5hf8/v-deo.htmlsi=EKO35SVlfWesZZgC
The small magnet starts spinning which is really interesting, but it also always flies to the magnet once it is a certain distance away from the magnet. I was never able to get it to "orbit" the magnet.
@@FractalWoman I think it should be done like the solar system. The planets rotate around the "equator" of the sun. But the paper is at the level of one of the poles. The sun is also tilted relative to the "equator". Maybe tilt the big magnet a little bit relative to the paper. It creates an elliptical isopotential orbit.
@@FractalWoman If the paper is placed above the dielectric plane of the inclined magnet, an isopotential ellipse of one of the poles is created. If the paper is placed at the dielectric plane of the inclined magnet, an isopotential path is formed from both poles. Half the path will belong to the north pole and the other half to the south pole.
@@zdenekbreza3770 The dielectric plane (central plane) cannot be inclined relative to the orientation of the magnet. If the magnet is inclined, then the central plane is inclined. If I place the paper inclined relative to a magnet, then yes, some of the paper will occupy the N pole region and some of it will occupy the S pole region. Is this what you are talking about?
@@zdenekbreza3770 Interesting idea. Now I see what you were talking about in the other message.
Great work as usual
Hello FractalWoman i love your journey of reconstructing physics on your own, and you are very close to finding "quantum" in this experiment analysis. Your classical physics intuition is spot on, all ball dipoles will move like you say, aligned in a vertical line north to south caught by "orbitals" as you said. Since dipoles start at random orientation some will be on their sides and they will need some minuscule time to reorient to magnetic field so they will hit the wall closer to the middle, the ones oriented vertically at start will hit the wall farthest from the middle, so they will form a vertical line hitting the wall, and that HAPPENS in real life with small test dipoles and most atoms, they form a line north to south. BUT SILVER with 1 electron in last orbital form only top and bottom points, nothing in the middle, no matter how they start oriented. And that is what is strange in SG experiment. Why are they hitting the same vertical distance above or below the middle point no matter how they started oriented? And why only atoms with 1 electron in last orbit do this? The rabbit hole starts here.
The reason they choose atoms with one electron in the last orbit is so that there is a Dipole moment (and not a Quadrapole moment or some other configuration). Regarding your question, I believe I answered that question when I compared the isopotential field diagrams with the probability distributions of the electrons inside an atom. There is a low probability of finding an "electron" in the region exactly between the N and S pole and there is a higher probability of finding them both above and below the low probability region. Now, it's possible that I am wrong about everything I am saying here. But until we do the SG-Experiment using two permanent magnets with the same shape and size, I will still be suspicious of the mainstream INTERPRETAION of this experiment.
@@FractalWoman Hehe and i am loving you for it :) I am not here to force mainstream interpretations on you. I agree with everything you said if atom probability clouds are oriented top and bottom (perpendicular to the line of travel) when entering magnetic field, but what will happen if they are at an angle when they start traveling? will they hit the same spots or different ones but just displaced a little depending of the starting angle?
@@FractalWomanWith two magnets of equal shape and size there is no deflection at all, because the forces on either pole of the atom's dipole cancel each other out. The magnetic field in the SG experiment is stronger towards one pole of the apparatus than the other, leading to imbalanced forces on the atomic dipole. The direction of the atomic spin determines the direction of the net force on the atom.
@ On your first point, I beg to differ. There will be deflection because sometimes, the silver atoms are going to be slightly above the central plane in which case they will deflect up and sometimes, the sliver atoms will be slightly below the central plane in which case, they will be deflected down. The chances of the silver atoms being exactly between the two magnets such that all the forces balance is very low which is why the silver atoms don't hit in the exact center.
@@FractalWoman I am curious about your thoughts because this was the moment and experiment that broke my understanding of classical physics on my own journey. Here i had to take a leap of faith to quantum and when you follow that path on the end, when u combine GR and QM, you get nonsense. Somewhere in history of physics we as a society made a mistake. Maybe this is the place...
OK, do variations on the SG experiment with "symmetrical" (non-wedged) magnetic fields also produce this pattern or is it somehow different? Is there a version of SG experiment that produce a single dot in the middle or do all of the versions produce 2 dots at top and bottom position?
What you describe feels extremely intuitive though the surest way for either confirming or debunking it, or even devising new interpretation is to DO the experiment and then modify the electric field and note any differences. With luck only one interpretation will be able to predict and explain any additional observations with the modified parameters.
This video feels like a necessary first step but only a first step nonetheless. If you can't do the experiment yourself please do a collaboration with someone who can. Don't leave us hanging with an explanation that does not give us additional insight without a solid proof.
I would love to do this experiment, but it would have to be done with silver atoms and setup exactly like the original experiments. My hope is that someone out there has access to this equipment and can do this experiment for me. That is why I made this video.
@@FractalWoman OK, out of curiosity I've just checked Wikipedia on the subject of 'Stern-Gerlach experiment' and there's a dedicated page that directly addresses what you are supposing, namely that the silver atoms act like magnets. There's a claim there that the experimenters initially expected a continuous outcome from top, through middle, to bottom, but instead only got binary top-bottom distribution. There's an animation there for better visualization.
To quote the page's description "If the particle is treated as a classical spinning magnetic dipole, it will precess in a magnetic field because of the torque that the magnetic field exerts on the dipole (see torque-induced precession)" - there seems to be an assumption (don't know if it's a correct one), that the magnetic dipole would be spinning. I don't know why the "spinning assumption" is there or if it is a good assumption, but there certainly was some reason for it.
There's also a description of a modified experiment, where the SG apparatus is connected in series, in various orientations. The experimental results (Experiment 1) are, that once a top-bottom measurement is made, they test the 'top' stream again and get no 'bottom' stream, which directly contradicts your assumption that the atoms are ever so slightly to the top or bottom, so that is where they end up. If your interpretation was correct, the second stage would also see an even top vs bottom split, but they only got 'top'.
IMHO it's the same experimental results as with polarizing filters in various orientations 0/90 deg vs 45/135 deg i.e. first polarizing filter passes either horizontal (0 deg.) or vertical (90 deg.), and any following filter will not detect horizontal polarization if the preceding one was vertical, but if the 2nd stage is 45 deg / 135 deg detection, then both orientations can be detected as in Experiment 2 on Wiki. This has been confirmed experimentally countless times, so I have no doubt it's correct.
Quantum spin seems to be then more related to polarization of the wave, rather than simply to its magnetic component/characteristics. Than again, I feel like wave polarization is in fact linked to magnetic characteristics, so I do think you are onto something. However without explaining the Experiment 1's results it's a no-go, as you explicitly state it's random 50%/50% and the actual results are clearly deterministic 100%/0%.
My bet would be on this "spinning magnetic dipole" assumption and its following consequence of "torque induced precession" - I am not convinced, that that is a good assumption, though since I haven't done the experiment myself I cannot actually say it's false.
@@FractalWoman hmm.. I've written a lengthy response to your comment, but it disappeared. Did you delete it? Weird.
I think I know what is actually happening with the experiment, but since my second comment is no longer visible I cannot reference it and without that context the explanation would be meaningless.
@ Hmmm. Strange. I didn't delete any comments.
@@vaakdemandante8772 What I do when I make a lengthy comment is I write it in wordpad or some other editor and then transfer it when I am done. That way, I don't lose all the typing. Just a suggestion.
To the previous post:
It would also be consistent with this that the stronger atmospheric and geomagnetic storms are at the north pole and not at the south pole of the Earth (the S magnetic pole, which attracts positive charge, on a negatively charged Earth, and when the solar "wind" consisting of positive particles is added, so ... nice discharges🙂)
We need to keep in mind that the North pole of the earth is the south pole of a magnet and vice versa. This confuses the issue unfortunately. chatgpt.com/share/67993d91-8e30-800a-9f76-5b13bd421db3
@@FractalWoman Yes, exactly. The aurora borealis is stronger than the aurora australis (the same goes for those atmospheric storms mentioned), which is located at the north pole of the Earth, where the south magnetic pole is. This is consistent with how I wrote it earlier.🙂
@ Actually, I wrote that mostly for other people reading this thread as some people don't realize this. 🙂
I have wondered why the magnets in an old tube TV do not do what the SG does.
What if they do but the big ass spinning magnet that is also a gyroscope just doesn't have the same forces working on it in the same proportions. The gyroscope would precess if the force is always just from the magnetic field, but if there is a dissipative force slowing it down and a torque in the orientation of the magnetic field then sooner or later the spin will end up aligned with the magnetic field, if the torque is anti aligned the magnetic gyro would end up anti aligned.
Your wondering just means the electron in the magnetic field is not exactly like a gyro with a magnetic moment, that's it, if you are looking for a classical explanation. There really isn't a quantum explanation, just an imposed condition on possible solutions.
@@JrgenMonkerud-go5lg I don’t get, still. Some one do a video on SG and why we don’t see the same thing on our old TV screens; I know, that is asking too much.
You raise a good point actually. The electrons coming out of the electron gun are gonna have their spins aligned on some random axis, and the magnetic fields that deflect them are homogenous. What if we made the field inhomogenous? Would we see the same as we do in SG? I don't think so... I'm not fully sure but I think you'd get curvy lines instead of straight lines.
@@franzliszt3195 they do, the basic idea is that the deflection due to Orientation of the dipole moment only happens in a non uniform magnetic field. While the deflection due to charge is much larger and happens wgether the field is uniform or not. But the dipole moments orientation should change all the same in a homogeneous magnetic
Cool video. It makes perfect sense. A lot more than that quantum bs. Everything can be explained using classical physics instead of fantasy physics. Using the Bloch wall or an equator, instead of Ken Wheeler's dielectric plane of inertia, I managed to get ChatGPT to understand and even find the idea fascinating. I'm sticking with this explanation.
I think you are correct. Thank you for your work.
Magnetic monopoles has been popular in Bose Einstein Plasma Orbs control is a Magnetic Monopole Specialty !, Spin ice , n other fields it’s been found ! Even Dr Jack Krause is explaining Molecules of ROS. Reactive oxygen species is using Magnetic monopoles ! Explains Y magnetics has NOT been explained in Biology or Anatomy !
Yes, there are mono-poles in spin ice which is very interesting. In the SG experiment, there are no mono-poles.
Once again, excellent work. I know that you are a big fan of Ken Wheelers and he has some interesting insights, but he is a bit of a wackadoo. You, on the other hand, have a structured, scientific, can I say 'mathematical' approach to your work when, combined with insights that 'buck' the indoctrinations of academia, is extremely refreshing and oddly consistent. My opinion: you should work on building your brand. You ought to have 1MM followers by now. I am studying your X standards and I am WAY on board with what you are doing with that. It has helped me with a time domain definition I have been working on, (for like decades). Thank you!
Truthfully, I am not really a BIG fan of Ken Wheeler. But he did get me looking more closely at the ferrocell which I finally figured out on my own, so for that, I am appreciative. I also like his ideas surrounding the principle of incommensurability. Everyone has a piece of the puzzle. I am glad you like what I am doing. Thanks so much.
Is there a way to figure out the shape or curvature of these equipotential lines? Fantastic work by the way.
Yes. Michael Snyder's Pic2Mag software is able to do this. That is what I used for the images in this video.
I would like to return to the suggestion of rotating a smaller magnet around a larger one near its dielectric plane. I have wondered for years how it is possible that the Sun changes magnetic poles every 11 years, yet changes neither the electric field nor the direction of rotation, which according to Fleming's right hand/left hand rule, the Sun should still make one of these changes.
Imagine that the sun is a small magnet moving around a large one in a CCW orbit and rotating CCW as well. What can make the sun change magnetic poles? Only if it moves half a cycle above the dielectric plane of the large magnet and the other half cycle below it. Hence the inclination of the big magnet. After half a cycle, when the small magnet crosses the dielectric plane again, it will flip over. At that point, if the rotation remained the same, the magnet would suddenly rotate CW. But we see that it continues to rotate CCW.
I realized what was going on when I looked at the operation of electric motors. According to Lorentz's rule, a coil placed in a magnetic field with current flowing through it exerts a force on it that causes it to rotate. After half a turn, the direction of the current must change, or the coil would stop rotating. There is an alternating current inside the coil, but from the outside, when we look at the coil, we perceive it as pulsating DC. Precisely because the coil has rotated 180 degrees in space and the AC has changed 180 degrees in time.
The same thing happens to the little magnet when it turns upside down and changes direction of rotation at the same time, but we see that it is still rotating just CCW with no change.
It's similar with the spin of an electron. In the electric motor example, it would correspond to this: During the 180 degree rotation of the coil, the electron goes all the way around the coil, 360 degrees (spin up) and the same is true in the second half of the cycle (spin down). So a total of 720 degrees during a 360 degree rotation of the coil.
Hmm. I think I am going to have to 3D print myself an experiment that allows me to place one of my large cylinder magnets at an inclined angle and see what happens to the small spherical magnet in the vicinity of the large magnet. Will it still spin? Will it still follow an isopotential curve that intersects the paper? Will it still fly towards the magnet at some point?
@@FractalWoman I look forward to seeing how this experiment eventually turns out.🙂
Thank you again so much for your work! I find these videos and your teaching invaluable. I do have a question though, you mentioned that magnetic monopoles aren't possible, but in my own understanding I thought that wasn't the case? Thank you so much, cheers!
This video is incredible. I've watched twice. You are the only one rn that gets it completely. Everyone else is behind, and science is WAY behind. Still, we are catching them up! Keep up the great work. ♥️
Thanks so much. Very kind of you to say.
I don't see why small magnets (the silver atoms) would travel on paths along the isopotentials.
In this video, I showed you an experiment I did where I was able to get the small spherical magnet to follow an isopotential line of the big magnet. So it is possible for this to happen. Because the small dipoles (silver atoms) are moving at some velocity, their paths are going to be "curved" by the magnetic body and begin to follow the magnetic isopotential analogous to how a small gravitational body can get caught up into a gravitational isopotential of a large gravitational body and fall into an orbit. If the small object is not moving at some velocity, then it WILL fall into the magnet and will never hit the detector.
@@FractalWoman Asteroids never encounter a planet and start moving along a gravitational isopotential (a circle).
Also your experiment with the spherical magnet doesn't show anything. The magnet couldn't fall freely under the influence of the magnetic field, because it was stuck on the surface (normal force).
@@mistersir3020 Actually, it IS possible for an asteroid to get captured into a planetary orbit and/or an orbit around the sun under the right conditions:
chatgpt.com/share/67965206-c004-800a-88ae-bb9753396bd8
I agree with what you said about the sphere magnet not falling into the big magnet because of the way it is bound to the paper. I explicitly say this in the video. I did a similar experiment where instead of sitting on a piece of paper, built a tiny paper boat for the small magnet and put it into a tub of water near the big magnet. Without the friction of the paper, the magnet (and the boat) flew right to the big magnet.
What is interesting about the paper experiment is that the sphere magnet is able to overcome the friction of the paper and roll along an isopotential line with no trouble. So, it's more than just the friction of the paper preventing it from flying to the magnet. It is also the orientation of the sphere magnet. When the tiny sphere magnet is orientated with the magnetic field of the big magnet, it cannot roll toward the magnet. It can only roll orthogonal to the magnetic field lines. I find this really interesting.
I had a little chat with AI and found out that electrons are attracted to the N magnetic pole by the Lorentz force and positive particles to the S pole. I was surprised at first, but in the end I shouldn't have been. First of all, it corresponds exactly to the fact that seeds grow better at the north pole of the magnet. More electrons for growth. Second, it matches your measurement of the N pole being positive, and its positive isopotentials. And thirdly it corresponds to the electron orbitals in the atom (which is positive). So maybe we already know how to produce antimatter in a cheaper and more stable way than in particle accelerators. 😂😂🤣🤣
This explains why (by convention) we always paint the N-pole red and a positive charge red, and the S-pole blue and a negative charge blue. Blue attracts red and vice versa.
Seeds grow better at the South pole, according to Ken Wheeler and all who made experiments with seeds...
@@Elie-J-Saoud thank you for correction
@@Elie-J-Saoud I did the experiment and I didn't see any difference. I used exactly the same magnet that Ken uses and the same procedure he described in his video.
@@FractalWoman one should make lot of experiments like the dr's who wrote those books,,, to reach a conclusion,,,
Anyway thanks for Your comment,it's been a while :)
11:13 Unlike the SGE, the small magnets here have no angular momentum and are in the vicinity of the large magnet from the beginning.
The silver atoms derive their magnetic dipole from a significant angular momentum relative to their mass, which gyroscopically resists being changed. This angular momentum is established before they enter the vicinity of the magnet.
I’d love to see a ferrocell used to map the shape of that magnetic field.
Unfortunately, the ferrocell can not be used to map a field directly as the ferrocell only shows reflected light and not light directly. The ferrocell is really cool, but it does not show a field. It only shows what light reflected off fields look like.
@ but it shows the field lines, right? I thought ferrocell a used extremely small magnetic particles that aligned with the field to visualize its shape.
@@Critter145 The ferrocell doesn't show the "field lines" directly. Only indirectly via the light that reflects off the nano-particle that DO align with the magnetic field. It is technically an optical illusion.
@ right, I know that. But the particles are essentially showing the field lines, so while not literal it’s effectively the same.
@@Critter145 The light lines that you see in the ferrocell are dependent on the positions of the light sources surrounding the ferrocell. The lines that you see do not correspond to a field line directly. The light that you see might bounce off many field lines before the light reaches your eye. It's an optical illusion. By analogy, if you stand in front of a curved mirror, the reflection that you see might make you look fat, or skinny depending on how the mirror is curved. The image that you see, does not accurately correspond to how you actually look. A similar thing can be said of the ferrocell. The nano-particles between the to pieces of glass are forming a "curved" mirror and the reflections off that mirror do not show the field lines exactly as you would see them if you could see them.
So the whole video is based on your lies about the magnetic fields configuration? That is rather pathetic.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finger_of_God_Globule#/media/File:%22Finger_of_God%22_Bok_globule_in_the_Carina_Nebula.jpg
@@FractalWoman "en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finger_of_God_Globule#/media/File:%22Finger_of_God%22_Bok_globule_in_the_Carina_Nebula.jpg"
such great argumentation, so eloquently explained. yeah, you really have shown me... just how ignorant and uneducated you are.
You never use the fact that the Stern-Gerlach Experiment specifically requires non-uniform (!) magnetic field. So, all your logic is wrong.
The two magnets in my video do form a non-uniform magnetic field between the magnets. In fact, even if the two permanent magnets were exactly the same, there would still be a non-uniform magnetic field between the two magnets.
chatgpt.com/share/67963bd4-1e1c-800a-94fa-1827df9d7817
You can easily see this when looking at the isopotential gradients that form between the magnets. Interestingly, THEY never did the experiment with two permanent magnets that are the exactly the same.
chatgpt.com/share/6793acfc-ac8c-800a-addd-49d5cb7eac7c
I would like to see that experiment. What THEY didn't take into consideration are the isopotential "orbits" that the tiny dipole moments would follow because they are moving at some velocity. They also have no way of proving that the magnetic moments anti-align. This is just an assumption they made based on their potentially flawed logic.
@@FractalWoman When the two permanent magnets are exactly the same, the original experiment will not work.
@@balabuyew The experiment will still "work", however, the outcome of the experiment might not be what one expects. I actually played around with this idea using two permanent magnets and my tiny sphere magnets (only with a left-right orientation instead of an up-down orientation). When I roll the tiny sphere magnet between the two magnets, sometimes it flies left and sometimes it flies right. This experiment is hard to control because the magnetic field of the earth the experiment. But I DO see this effect happening at the macro scale. As I roll the tiny magnet between the two large magnets (with some velocity) two things happen:
1) the small magnet always aligns with the two big magnet (and never anti-aligns)
2) if the small magnet is a tiny bit to the left of the center plane of the two big magnets, it's path curves left and if it is a tiny bit to the right of the central plane, it curves right.
I could still be wrong, but until they do the SG-Experiment with two identical permanent magnets, I might also be right.
@@FractalWoman Stern-Gerlach apparatus consist of two differently shaped magnets on purpose, not just for fun :)))
Yet she never used uniform magnetic field (plus you must know Stern-Gerlach requires non-uniform field perpendicular to the beam of particles). Your logic seems off